FLINT, MI -- More than 100 people across eastern Michigan are targeted by federal lawsuits that an attorney for the plaintiff says are intended to put an end to illegally downloaded Internet pornography.

FILE

However, an attorney who regularly represents those caught up in the suits says the adult film industry is after the defendants for settlements using allegations that sometimes don't prove true.

Since November 2011, Patrick Collins Inc. has filed 10 lawsuits in the Eastern District of Michigan federal court against individuals it claims illegally downloaded its videos through BitTorrent, an online file-sharing computer program.

The California-based company that owns Elegant Angle Productions has filed suits in Flint, Detroit and Bay City courts after individuals, often referred to as “John Doe” in the suits, downloaded films such as “Cuties 2,” “Busty Construction Girls” and “Asian Booty.”

“It’s no different than stealing anything,” said Bloomfield Hills attorney Paul Nicoletti, who represents Patrick Collins Inc. “Whether it’s a song, it’s a movie, it doesn’t matter what it is.”

“They are spectacularly notorious copyright trolls,” Grimm said. “They seek litigation when they have already been told they are completely innocent.”

The term copyright troll refers to a company that files copyright lawsuits specifically to profit off of financial settlements.

Typically, when a copyright case is filed, it outlines the name of the work the individual is accused of downloading, how they downloaded it and the IP address and name of Internet service provider of the alleged illegal downloaders.

Attorneys representing those that claim their work was pirated then typically file a motion for a third-party subpoena, which they then serve on the Internet service providers to try and connect a customer name to the IP address.

The ISPs then inform their customers that a subpoena has been issued for their information.

The John Does, who can remain anonymous, typically file motions seeking to strike down the subpoenas in order to keep their personal information from being given out.

In these motions, attorneys complain that the subpoena notifications are often followed by demand letters that say the John Does could avoid dealing with the lawsuit for $2,500-$3000, according to court documents.

A letter written by Grimm on behalf of John Does being sued by Patrick Collins Inc. to another attorney representing the company, claims that those named in the suit also receive “unwelcome, harassing telephone calls” seeking money in relation to the lawsuits.

Nicoletti, who has worked on nearly all of Patrick Collins Inc.’s lawsuits in Michigan’s Eastern District, denied that he uses any sort of intimidation technique to get people to settle, or use the fact that they are accused of downloading pornography to blackmail or extort them into a settlement.

However, he declined to release any information on the settlements he does reach on Patrick Collins Inc.’s behalf due to privacy and non-disclosure clauses included in the agreements.

Many times, Grimm said, the individuals receiving this treatment have done nothing wrong.

“I’ve been contacted by dozens and dozens of people who never downloaded movies at all,” said Grimm.

Grimm’s letter cites illegal downloaders’ abilities to gain access to other people’s wireless Internet networks or their ability to otherwise disguise themselves on someone else’s network to make it appear as if the Internet subscriber is illegally downloading movies.

“It appears to be a problem that people ought to be concerned about,” Grimm said of the network vulnerabilities.

So far, none of Patrick Collins Inc.’s suits have made it to trial in Michigan’s Eastern District.

In some suits, which regularly include dozens of John Does, judges have ruled that multiple defendants cannot be joined together in a single suit since Patrick Collins Inc. cannot prove that the John Does “engaged in the same series of transactions with respect to their alleged infringing conduct,” according to court records.

In these cases, judges allow the case to continue against the first John Doe listed, but the others are dismissed.

A New York magistrate judge took it even further in May, denying a request in a suit involving Patrick Collins Inc. to subpoena names associated with 79 IP addresses, because an IP address wasn’t enough to pinpoint who actually downloaded a movie, according to a report by PC World.

“The assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time,” Magistrate Judge Gary Brown wrote in his ruling according to the report. “An IP address provides only the location at which one of any number of computer devices may be deployed, much like a telephone number can be used for any number of telephones.”

Even if the cases do move forward, they are often voluntarily dismissed against the John Does by Patrick Collins Inc. because they are unable to properly serve the defendants by court deadlines, according to court records. However, Patrick Collins Inc. does reserve the right to re-file the suits after further investigation, the documents say.

Despite the complaints that some have about the legal strategies used in the cases, Nicoletti said that it doesn’t negate the fact that the targets of the suits are people who are stealing products from his client and that they need to be held accountable.

“They could claim all they want they don’t have to be held accountable for downloading the movies,” Nicoletti said. “But, at the end of the day, they are liable for it.”